Re: [Vo]:RE: Popular Mechanics article on LENR and Rossi lawsuit

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jim,

More important- what do YOU know, think believe about the entire conflict?
I would gladly publish your statement(s) in my blog EGO OUT.
thanks in advance,
Peter

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:45 PM, James Dunn  wrote:

> See
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20454/in-cold-fusion-20-whos-scamming-whom/
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:RE: Popular Mechanics article on LENR and Rossi lawsuit

[James Dunn]

See
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20454/in-cold-fusion-20-whos
-scamming-whom/

 

Re: Popular Mechanics article

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is one statement from the article that is certainly right, although 
probably for the wrong reasons:

The DOE will only acknowledge that its decision to re-examine cold fusion 
is in part based on national security concerns.

I would love to know who said that, and what they had in mind. I expect 
they were thinking about tritium or other nuclear effects. Actually, CF 
does have immense national security implications, but they have nothing to 
do with nuclear weapons. A nation equipped with CF technology, in ordinary 
workaday machines such as trucks, aircraft, radios and refrigerators, would 
have immense military power compared to nations equipped only with fossil 
fuel energy. A nation with a few thousand CF powered aircraft, ships, 
cruise missiles, torpedoes, and surveillance aircraft and spacecraft could 
crush the entire U.S. military overnight. The fight would be as lopsided as 
the U.S. naval victory over Spain in 1898, or the British Opium War in 1848.

- Jed

Re: Popular Mechanics article

[Steven Krivit]

Jed:
If other nations are quicker to develop new energy technology than the 
U.S., then an entire system of economic and political balance may become 
unstable. This would be a matter of national security just as much, if not 
more threatening, than bombs.  There is the slight possibility that in the 
coming years, the U.S.'s failure to take CF seriously in the first 15 years 
may be very, very embarrassing to those who ignored it.

Steve

Re: Popular Mechanics article

[Standing Bear]

On Friday 16 July 2004 12:14, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Here is one statement from the article that is certainly right, although
 probably for the wrong reasons:

 The DOE will only acknowledge that its decision to re-examine cold fusion
 is in part based on national security concerns.

 I would love to know who said that, and what they had in mind. I expect
 they were thinking about tritium or other nuclear effects. Actually, CF
 does have immense national security implications, but they have nothing to
 do with nuclear weapons. A nation equipped with CF technology, in ordinary
 workaday machines such as trucks, aircraft, radios and refrigerators, would
 have immense military power compared to nations equipped only with fossil
 fuel energy. A nation with a few thousand CF powered aircraft, ships,
 cruise missiles, torpedoes, and surveillance aircraft and spacecraft could
 crush the entire U.S. military overnight. The fight would be as lopsided as
 the U.S. naval victory over Spain in 1898, or the British Opium War in
 1848.

 - Jed


Yeah, like a plane that never has to land, at least in our lifetime anyway.  
For that matter, a enough power piped to plasma electric thrusters could
make a practical space shuttle of any size.  Set any delta V that you want.

Standing Bear